The popular uprising toppled an evil dictator, thanks in no small part to the assistance of N.A.T.O., whose timely intervention averted a terrible slaughter of civilians.

Freedom has come to Libya. So good it just about makes me throw up.

They’re lying, folks. The media, pretty much all of it in the west, including those cuddly public radio and television shows paid for by generous grants from Chevron and from viewers like you, are hosing you about Libya. Lying through their teeth. So, too, are the pols, from Generalissimo Obama on down.

You have watched events as they unfolded, beginning last February, 2011, when the media suddenly noticed a ‘popular uprising’ in Benghazi, in eastern Libya, and through the westward push of the valiant freedom-fighters, protected from the missiles of Moammar Qaddafi by N.A.T.O. planes and under the kindly auspices of U.N. Resolution 1973.

Against great odds, these rebel fighters struggled, often suffering terrible losses but refusing to quit, inspired it was said by the events in Egypt and elsewhere, the bravery of ordinary people standing up to tyrants.

The reality, the truth about Libya, is quite different.

What you’ve been told about Qaddafi, about his rule, about Libyan policies in Africa and in the rest of the world, about Libyan education, health and welfare, and energy, all of these are lies. What you’ve been told about U.N. resolutions 1970 and 1973, their origin and purpose, the conduct of N.A.T.O., the composition of the ‘rebel’ army, the use of arms, the ‘massacre’ of civilians and by whom, the behavior of the CIA, and the true reasons for western intervention in Libyan affairs, all of these are also lies.

What you may not have heard is that Libya, under Qaddafi, raised its literacy rate from 10% to 90%, one of the highest in the world, and its standard of living was the highest of any country in Africa.

You may not have heard that every Libyan had a place to live, and a job, guaranteed, from age 22 , free public education through university, and health care, free electricity, and a yearly stipend of $500.00 from Libyan oil. Libya under Qaddafi had created the greatest irrigation project in the middle east. All Libyans received a pension for life at age 60.

You may not have heard that under Qaddafi's rule, discrimination was prohibited and equal rights were guaranteed for women and minorities.

You probably did not hear that Libya was a country with no national debt, in stark contrast with several European nations such as Italy and Greece, whose people are suffering increased privations due to the monetary practices of their countries and their leaders.

Unlike elsewhere in that region of the world, Libyans were able to secure interest-free loans.

America’s assault on the Libyan government could not be managed on the pretext that Qaddafi was threatening his neighbors or wielding weapons or seeking to become a nuclear power –– unlike, for example, Israel –– because Libya had publicly abandoned research and development of nuclear weaponry in December of 2003, ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on January 6, 2004, and had not stockpiled WMDs. Therefore, the U.S. couldn’t claim, as it had in the case of Iraq and as it seeks to do with Iran, that a ‘rogue’ nation was a danger to others.

Let’s not make of these things a case for Qaddafi's sainthood. Although the stories of his massacres were in all probability inventions of propagandists, he was pretty clearly an egomaniac and, even by western standards, a lunatic. He almost certainly had political opponents killed. He imprisoned the opposition. Nobody rules for forty years without some major league despotism. But that’s not really the point. The point is that with the substantial well-being of the Libyan people in general, and the contrasting existence of crazy killers running a good number of countries in the world, why Libya? What, after years of overtures to and from the west and a very public renunciation of advanced weaponry, caused America to decide to topple and kill Qaddafi?

Because that’s exactly what happened.

Libya, with Qaddafi at the helm, was a major threat to some people, and it was those people and those interests the United States and N.A.T.O. served in overthrowing its government.

Before digging too much into reasons, let’s take a look at a partial chronology of events.

In 1981, the CIA created and financed the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, with a headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Some 23 years ago, Libya was thought to be behind –– or to have harbored those who were behind –– the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Scotland. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Libya were severed.

According to General Wesley Clarke, Pentagon sources told him ten years ago that the U.S. had a ‘hit list’, and that Libya was on it along with Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, and Sudan.

In 2007, U.S. oil companies, interested in getting a piece of the vast Libyan oil reserves, pressured the Bush administration to ‘normalize’ relations with Qaddafi. Bush then reestablished diplomatic relations and telephoned Qaddafi personally to express his satisfaction that Libya “had renounced terrorism.” Wikileaks cables have indicated that some Libyan opposition leaders were dissatisfied that Bush had not insisted on political concessions.

According to Marian Wang in Pro Publica, February, 2011, the spearhead for the 2007 overtures was David Goldwyn, head of the U.S.-Libya Business Association, an oil company trade group. Goldwyn is now the U.S. State Department’s Coordinator for International Energy Affairs under Hillary Clinton.
Note that Libya, while it is Africa’s third-largest producer of oil, has the continent’s largest reserves –– 44.3 billion barrels.

So was it about the oil? American oil companies had worked a few deals already. While it is preferable to be able to control the source more directly and exploit the reserves without any nasty homegrown interference, the oil boys nevertheless had been able to muscle in before now.

And there was this:

On October 1, 2009, as President of the African Union, Moammar Qaddafi gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly. In it, he pointed out that there was a great difference between the preamble to the U.N.’s charter, with which he and the other member nations agreed, and the way in which the Articles were written, which conveyed veto power to five superpowers. He pointed out, ironically, that the U.N. had not tried to stop military interventions by the U.S. against other governments, but had been used by the U.S. and its allies to intervene on behalf of client states.

He then reminded them of the murder of Dag Hammarskjold, the U.N. Secretary-General whose plane was shot down by the CIA, Patrice Lumumba, of the Congo, another murder victim of the U.S., and of JFK’s murder... saying that the perpetrators of these crimes had never been caught.

He also suggested that the U.N. had been located in New York long enough and could reasonably be relocated to China or India sometime in the future.

So, was it personal? Probably not. But there were certainly significant forces in the U.S. who wanted Qaddafi out.

As the ‘rebel’ movement began to stir in Benghazi,the Wall Street Journal editorialized, on February 22, 2011, that “The U.S. and Europe should help Libyans overthrow the Qaddafi regime.” They were in fact already trying to, but it wasn’t working out.

The CIA-recruited, financed, equipped, and trained ‘rebels’ –– mostly Qatari soldiers who’d been in training for months in Iraq with U.S. special forces –– were in retreat in February. This was not acceptable. Hence it was necessary for the U.S. to pressure enough African states to support a U.N. Resolution to authorize the “protection” of civilians. Qatar, you should note, is the headquarters for the U. S. Central Command.

The cover story was that in the manufactured ‘civil war’ the Libyan government was threatening to massacre civilians. Therefore, N.A.T.O., under U.N. auspices, would enforce a ‘no-fly zone’ and remove Qaddafi's air force as a weapon against the ‘rebels.’

This amazing pretense was continued all the way to the end, with President Obama claiming that the United States was involved only in supporting N.A.T.O., and in providing intelligence and logistical support. In fact, Obama used some of the same phony, drastic imagery George Bush’s crew had used to justify attacking Iraq. Bush had said he “refuse(d) to wait for... a mushroom cloud” and Obama declared that he “refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves.”

The President, as Reuters later disclosed, had signed a secret order authorizing arming the ‘rebels’, even though he publicly claimed that America was not making war against Libya or Qaddafi and was only acting to protect civilians. He called U.S. air strikes, a “kinetic action,” a term which will no doubt take its place alongside “protective reaction,” “regime change,” “enhanced interrogation,” and other euphemisms of dictatorship.

Some American politicians raised disturbing questions concerning constitutional powers, but the U.S. government simply ignored the law. Dennis Kucinich pointed out that Obama was in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the War Powers Act, and the U.N. Resolution itself. The mass media didn’t care. Qaddafi was a bad guy, so getting rid of him was a fine idea.

Hillary Clinton told a crowd in Tunisia that “this is a man who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way.” As the L.A. Times reported, Clinton said Qaddafi would “do terrible things” to Libya and other countries because “it’s just in his nature.”

We will return to Hillary Clinton and her own nature in a while.

Still, the U.S.-created ‘rebels’ couldn’t get anywhere. Pinned down in Benghazi with the end looming, they got some relief when the U.N. Security Council, on March 17th, gave the okay to attacking Libyan ground forces. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said that the U.N. “has responded to the Libyan people’s cry for help.”

Evidently, the Libyan people’s cry for help required creation of a central bank, since on March 19, the same day N.A.T.O. began blowing things up, the ‘rebels’ established two entities: the Central Bank of Benghazi and the Libyan Oil Company.

In the months which followed, the U.N. mission of protecting civilians lost its fig leaf entirely. N.A.T.O. missiles rained down on civilian centers, on schools and hospitals in cities loyal to the Libyan government. As the Libyan army was hit by unceasing air attacks, the ‘rebels’ managed to slowly advance toward Tripoli.

The U.S. and its allies continued to pretend they were interested only in “protecting civilians.” In a jointly-signed statement from Obama, Sarkozy, and David Cameron, printed in the Times of London, Le Figaro, and the International Herald Tribune, they declared in April that “our duty and our to protect civilians... It is not to remove Qaddafi by force.” But they added, “So long as Qaddafi is in power, N.A.T.O. must maintain its operations...”

While this was going on, several African states attempted to intervene, asking that the U.N. offer a diplomatic path for a ceasefire and perhaps even elections, but the U.N., for the first time in its history, refused to take that path. There would be no elections because Qaddafi would almost certainly win. There was no acceptable result other than the one Obama and his allies had pretended they did not want: Qaddafi's murder and the takeover of Libya by the CIA’s little friends.

In May, Qaddafi pleaded with the international community to send ‘fact-finding’ teams to Libya to report what was actually going on. Some observers did show up and were able to send communiqués to the rest of the world, although with the exception of the internet these found no major news outlets in the west. I have read dozens of these. Some are quite poignant. As N.A.T.O. bombs rained on Tripoli, a Libyan mother whose son had been killed asked, “Why is America doing this to us?”

A May 24th bulletin from former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who had joined one such international team of observers with Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, and former Senator Mike Gravel, reads, in part, “last night's NATO rocket attack on Tripoli is inexplicable.  A civilian metropolitan area of around 2 million people, Tripoli sustained 22 to 25 bombings last night, rattling and breaking windows and glass and shaking the foundation of my hotel.  

“I left my room at the Rexis Al Nasr Hotel and walked outside the hotel and I could smell the exploded bombs. There were local people everywhere milling with foreign journalists from around the world. As we stood there more bombs struck around the city. The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.

“I could taste the thick dust stirred up by the exploded bombs. I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus.  If depleted uranium weapons were being used what affect on the local civilians?”

In early June, American journalist Wayne Madsen filed this report from Tripoli:

“In the current NATO war on Libya, the citizens of European and North American NATO countries are being treated to the largest propaganda blitz by their governments in cahoots with corporate media outlets since the U.S.-led invasions and occupation of Iraq. The situation on the ground in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, could not more different from what is being portrayed by Western news networks and newspapers.

“The NATO missile attack that killed Moammar Qaddafi's son, Seif al Arab Qaddafi, on April 30, was an attempt to kill Moammar Qaddafi himself. This editor visited the devastated home where Seif was killed, along with his friend and three of Moammar Qaddafi's grandchildren. The only reason why Moammar Qaddafi survived the blast was that he was away from the main residence tending to some animals, including two gazelles, kept in a small petting zoo maintained for his grandchildren. Moammar Qaddafi escaped the fate of his son and grandchildren by only about 500 feet. The residence was hit by bunker buster bombs fired from a U.S. warplane. One of the warheads did not detonate and was later removed from what remained of a bedroom in the home. Libyan authorities do not have the technical capabilities to determine if the warhead contained depleted uranium.

“NATO and the Pentagon claimed the residence was a military compound, yet there is no evidence that any military assets were located in the residence that was flanked by the homes of a Libyan doctor and businessmen. The Qaddafi residence actually is owned by Qaddafi's wife. The neighbors' homes were also badly damaged in the U.S. air attack and are uninhabitable. Only a few hundred yards away from the Qaddafi compound sits the embassy of Cote d'Ivoire.

“The presence of a foosball table and swing set in the yard of the Qaddafi compound belies the charge by the Pentagon that the home was a military target. However, considering that Qaddafi was present in the compound during the attack, it is clear that President Obama violated international law and three Executive Orders signed by three past presidents -- Ford, Carter, and Reagan -- in trying to assassinate the Libyan head of state. In fact, while Obama's order to kill Qaddafi was being carried out, the President of the United States was preparing to yuck it up with Washington's illuminati and Hollywood's glitterati at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington.

“Obama's order to kill Qaddafi is reminiscent of George W. Bush's order to kill Sadaam Hussein at the outset of the U.S. war against Iraq, an assassination order that was also a violation of international and U.S. law.”

Eventually, of course, the United States was going to get what it wanted in Libya, a new, client state which can be controlled. It was only a matter of time, however many missiles had to be fired, however many innocent people killed, however many refugees created, however much misery inflicted.

By June, while the west slept through a media blackout, the rest of the world was beginning to catch on to what was happening in Libya. The mercenary ‘rebels,’ supported by N.A.T.O. firepower, had begun to take territory and, with it, there were widespread incidents of pure horror. Reporter Susan Lindauer, angry that CNN would not cover it, filed this story over the internet:

“Armed soldiers force young Libyan women out of their beds at gunpoint. Hustling the women and teenagers into trucks, the soldiers rush the women to gang bang parties for NATO rebels or else rape them in front of their husbands or fathers. When NATO rebels finish their rape sport, the soldiers cut the women’s throats. Rapes are now ongoing acts of war in rebel-held cities, like an organized military strategy, according to refugees...”

But why be so negative when we can focus instead on the positive. Also in June, CNN did report on this development:

“The rebel government in control of the eastern part of Libya has made its first sale of oil from territory it controls, the State Department confirmed Wednesday. Tesoro, a U.S. oil refiner, entered into a deal May 25 with the Transitional National Council based in Benghazi, Libya for 1.2 million barrels of Libyan crude oil, the State Department said in a written statement. The shipment was scheduled to arrive aboard the MT Equator, a Liberian-flagged tanker, at the Single Point Mooring in Hawaii on Wednesday. The dollar value of the deal is not known.

“U.S. support for additional oil sales with the TNC will continue as a means to support additional revenue streams for the Libyan people, the statement said. The sale was made possible following an April announcement by the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department that established a new licensing policy with Libya. That action was taken to ease barriers to certain oil related transactions with the TNC, in place because of wider U.S. sanctions on Libya.

“The announcement came the same day Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in the United Arab Emirates for a meeting with the Libya Contact Group, a coalition of various countries and international organizations that seek to build support for the TNC while preparing for Libya's future after the presumed end of Moammar Qaddafi's regime. This is the third meeting of the group.

“France, Italy and Qatar are among the small number of countries who have officially recognized the TNC as the legitimate government of Libya. While the United States has yet to take that step, President Barack Obama "has invited them to open an office in Washington," a senior administration official told reporters traveling with Clinton.”

We’re not there yet, but nearly. It’s important here to understand not only the skein of lies woven by American interests and trumpeted by the whores of the mass media but the rich fabric of sociopathology which gives it such relentless power.

You may have seen the video. That’s the age we’re living in now, everything is available, including images of the brutal beating, torturing, sodomizing, and killing of a 70-year-old head of state. Unaware that she, too, was being filmed, America’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, exulted on hearing the news. “We came, we saw, and he died!” she crowed. We ought not be surprised. That’s just her nature. She is a monster.

In the aftermath of Qaddafi's murder, there were a series of real massacres ignored by the western press and the western governments. Obama did not mention that the mercenary troops, many wearing distinctive Qatari uniforms, carried out rapes and mass executions of ‘black’ Africans. There has been little commentary on the fact that while this ‘rebellion’ to ‘free’ Libya is supposed to have been a popular one, fighting still rages in several cities months after the mercenaries took Tripoli, and nobody in the mass media mentions that while Obama and the N.A.T.O. gang’s April pledge was that “So long as Qaddafi is in power, N.A.T.O. must maintain its operations...” the N.A.T.O. bombings have continued after his death. Why would that be necessary in the midst of such a popular uprising?

Noam Chomsky believes that the point was always oil, control over its distribution and access to “vast, unexplored areas.” He points also to internal U.S. documents, leaked to the press, which warn of the “virus of nationalism” in the middle east and Africa. Certainly interesting speculation. After all, American politicians don’t mention the “virus of nationalism” when they wrap themselves in the flag.

Oil producers who are considered reliable are permitted to do whatever they want domestically. Saudi Arabia is often mentioned in this regard, with its draconian laws and harsh punishment of dissent. There is nothing approaching democracy there, and the U.S. utters not a single word of criticism. The same is true of Bahrain and in Kuwait. Popular demonstrations have been crushed by police. Nobody in the U.S. or in the U.S. media says shit about that. Rush Limbaugh does not murmur. None of the Republican presidential candidates says a word. Of course, the Republican candidates do not know where Bahrain is located and think Kuwait is a board game by Parker Brothers.

Bahrain is safe to do what it likes because it is home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet and borders the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, where most of the oil is situated.

So it’s reasonable to see this military operation as containing a bit of revenge and a bit of object lesson. You do not go to the U.N. and tell off America on its own soil. Those who have done so have incurred not only diplomatic wrath and various sanctions but secret operations designed to ‘destabilize’ their governments or even kill them. And knocking off Qaddafi and seizing Libya had an oil payoff to it, all of those reserves. And strategically, nice place to be able to station troops in the future if you planned to invade some other countries in that neck of the woods, but...

Wayne Madden has written extensively about some of the freedom-loving Libyans who abandoned Qaddafi and signed-on with the ‘rebels’. These people may not have been entirely selfless patriots:

“The Libyan rebel “finance minister” Ali Tarhouni is believed to be a longtime CIA asset and it was he who planned the theft of the cash from the safe vault of the Central Bank in Benghazi, carried out with the assistance of a CIA-supplied safecracker from the United Arab Emirates.
A number of Libyan ministers who defected from the government to the rebels were known to be opposed to Qaddafi's policy of sharing revenue with the Libyan people and were more interested in fattening their own bank accounts and investment portfolios. It is not coincidental, therefore, that one of the first targets of the NATO warplanes was the office in Tripoli responsible for conducting an investigation of fraud of senior government officials. Many of the officials under investigation for fraud and corruption, including senior Qaddafi ministers, are now top officials of the Interim National Transition Council, recognized by France, Italy, Britain, and other NATO countries as the "legitimate" government of Libya. Western nations are already cutting deals with rebel leaders for new oil concessions that will place the interests of Big Oil over those of the Libyan masses.

“The ministers and senior advisers implicated in corruption include former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the nominal and ineffectual leader of the rebel interim council; Mahmoud Jibril, the U.S.-trained former Planning Minister and head of the Economic Development Board who is acting as prime minister of the rebel “Libyan Republic,” Dr. Ali el-Essawi, the Trade and Industry Minister and former ambassador to India who is also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,Interior Minister Abdul Fatah Yunis and a close friend of Qaddafi, and former Libyan intelligence chief and Foreign Minister Musa Kusa, another close friend of Qaddafi who was also the CIA's point man in the agency's "extraordinary rendition" and kidnapping program in Libya.”

Well, friends, what in the world is this really about? Why would the U.S. and its ‘partners’ in N.A.T.O. embark on such an adventure, dropping mercenaries into the hills in eastern Libya, creating this phony ‘revolution’ and empowering a bunch of crooks, not to mention Al Qaeda operatives? Those cruise missiles cost millions. Where’s the payoff?

The payoff may be something more substantial than strategic military positions or even oil deals. It may have a great deal to do with international finance, debt, and control of the world’s currency.

In its June 10, 2011, issue, Time Magazine quoted one Papa Madiaw Ndiaye, CEO of Advanced Finance & Investment Group, a private-equity company in Dakar, Senegal, which invests in projects across Africa. “There’s a drastic reshuffling of the decks,” he said. “It’s a chance for new people to get into these countries and bring in a whole new energy.” Ndiaye specified that Qaddafi's successor “will be pressed by the banking community” to privatize considerable real estate, including tourist hotels, “perhaps selling them to foreign partners.”

Qaddafi's Libya controlled its own oil, and ran its own bank. Libya had no national debt. What does that mean? It means that the government, the nation, did not have to borrow money from –– and pay interest to –– banks. And debt is the primary mechanism for political control.

Consider what is happening in Greece and Italy. The stories in the western media seem a little confusing, don’t they? We hear that these countries are deeply in debt, and that in order to survive they must borrow even more money. But the IMF will not lend them billions more unless they adopt “austerity” measures. And the “austerity” measures include reductions in government payrolls, loss of public services, and the privatization of property and functions formerly owned and run by the population.

The new leader in Greece, with the forced resignation of George Papandreou, turns out to be Lucas Papademos, former vice president of the European Central Bank and an advisor to Goldman Sachs. Wow, what a coincidence! In Italy, the new prime minister turns out to be Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and for six years a Goldman Sachs advisor.

My goodness, does everyone work for Goldman Sachs? Speaking of which, guess who was the largest single contributor to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in 2008? Clue: not you and me.

When governments collapse in Greece and Italy, ordinarily new elections are called. Not this time. Why not? Because, according to Sarkozy of France and German Chancellor Merkel, we’re in an emergency situation, and elections would take too long and might not lead to a decisive result. Really.

Papandreou and Italy’s Berlusconi were unable to impose the ‘austerity’ nonsense on their people that the bankers insisted on, and so they had to go.

In Libya, the very existence of a successful state without debt was a danger to western plans for the entire region, especially since popular reform movements were springing up everywhere. What would happen if and when the people figured out what the bankers were doing to their countries?

Libya operated a sovereign fund which distributed oil profits to Libya’s citizens. And while Qaddafi had engaged in selling oil to western corporations, he had announced that Libya would no longer accept payment in dollars. This is critically important, as Ellen Brown, author of “Web of Debt” points out. Reminding her readers that under The Green Book form of governance “Libya has achieved what we in the United States do not enjoy:  universal health care paid for by the state; universal education subsidized through the Ph.D. level by the state; oil revenue sharing; subsidized housing; subsidized automobile purchases; $50,000 marriage subsidy for newlyweds; and more,” Brown notes that the very states General Clarke’s Pentagon friend had named as being on America’s ‘hit list’ –– Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, and Libya were the ones which did not belong to the Bank of International Settlements, which is the Central Bankers’ bank. It is impossible to overstate the significance of this situation. The U.S. attacked Iraq shortly after Hussein announced that Iraq was switching from the dollar to the Euro for oil sales. Sudan has since been destroyed and Somalia is a disaster. Now Libya has been taken.

The big deal is this: the U.S. and its corporations buy and consume most of the world’s oil. They buy the oil in dollars which, by agreement, are then deposited in U.S. banks. This has always been the crux of the deal between the U.S. and the Saudis. The enormity of the operation is obvious. Should oil producing countries insist on being paid not in dollars but in some other currency, or should the payments not be deposited in U.S. banks, the economic repercussions would be monumental.

Qaddafi was not only dumping the dollar as payment for oil, he was insisting on dinars, and he was proposing the use of the dinar, a gold-backed currency, as the basis for a single African currency which Africans would themselves print and control.

This was as earthshaking as a declaration of war. The bankers had to topple the Libyan government.

As early as last April, with the N.A.T.O. bombings just begun and the outcome at least theoretically in doubt, World Bank President Robert Zoellick told a panel discussion that “he hopes the institution will have a role rebuilding Libya as it emerges from current unrest. Zoellick... noted the bank's early role in the reconstruction of France, Japan and other nations after World War II. Reconstruction now means (Ivory Coast), it means southern Sudan, it means Liberia, it means Sri Lanka, I hope it will mean Libya," Zoellick said. On Ivory Coast, Zoellick said he hoped that within "a couple weeks" the bank would move forward with "some hundred millions of dollars of emergency support."

The “emergency support” extended by the World Bank is as corrupt and cynical as you suspect it is. These are not beneficent bankers offering a helping hand in time of need; these are predators offering Mafia loans to people whose businesses will shortly need new management.

John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” explained what he saw happening in Libya as early as last April:

“According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Moammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.

“The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq.”

The World Bank is, of course, really a United States bank, as is the IMF, and the Bank for International Settlements. Policies are determined by the bankers who run Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citicorp, Chase, and a couple of European concerns. The stakes are enormous, nothing less than control of the world.

Perkins says, “we might ask ourselves: What happens when a “rogue” country threatens to bring the banking system that benefits the corporatocracy to its knees? What happens to an “empire” when it can no longer effectively be overtly imperialistic?”

“ empire is a nation that dominates other nations by imposing its own currency on the lands under its control. The empire maintains a large standing military that is ready to protect the currency and the entire economic system that depends on it through extreme violence, if necessary. The ancient Romans did this. So did the Spanish and the British during their days of empire-building. Now, the US or, more to the point, the corporatocracy, is doing it and is determined to punish any individual who tries to stop them. Qaddafi is but the latest example.”

That, I think, is what happened in Libya. If Moammar Qaddafi had really been the terrible tyrant America’s mass media told us he was, would he have had the support of Nelson Mandela? Would he have retained great popularity among his people for more than forty years? Evidently, he was an egotist, and enough of one to think he could get away with elevating what was best for Africa and for his people over what was best for the world’s bankers.

It is a sordid tale, and one which does no honor to America nor its leaders. The real story is told not in the press releases and cover stories but in the unscripted moments, the ugly little sidebars, the things America’s phony President did not tell us about banks and money and power, and the video of America’s Secretary of State quite literally cackling over the beating and murder of a 70-year-old man.